Hospitality Law Case Study: Food Poisoning and Legal Implications

This case study examines a food poisoning incident involving Husna Nasi Berlauk, a business in the hospitality industry. The analysis focuses on the legal aspects of the case, particularly the application of Section 13A regarding food unfit for human consumption. The case involves a customer who experienced food poisoning after consuming food from the restaurant. The document presents the arguments and evidence, including the fact that the customer's friends who ate the same food did not get sick. Based on this, the conclusion is that the plaintiff, the customer, is found guilty because the evidence to prove food poisoning from the restaurant is weak. The document highlights the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in such cases, ultimately concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the food from the restaurant was the probable cause of the illness, and thus, the case cannot be sued.

ANY LAW CASE OR LEGAL ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPANY OR AGAINST
THE COMPANY
We had chosen Husna Nasi Berlauk which is related to hospitality industry to conduct
our interview to complete our written report. Husna Nasi Berlauk especially known as ‘Nasi
Air Dingin’ in Kelantan which is also an instant food. After being interviewed, the business
had problems related to hospitality law. How we know that this case was related to hospitality
law are because a customer purchases food from an eatery or consumes and pays for a meal
at a restaurant, there is a contract between the customer and the food provider. Hospitality
law is the body of law relating to the food service, travel, and lodging industries. That is, it is
the body of law governing the specific nuances of hotels, restaurants, spas, country clubs,
meeting, convention planners and more. Furthermore, hospitality law does not just involve
one area of law. It encompasses a wide variety of practise areas, including contracts, tort law
and more.
Issue of this case is whether the business of Husna Nasi Berlauk is responsible for the
food poisoning of the customer. The provision act is section 13A unfit for human
consumption. Section 13A refers to an offence of preparing and selling food unfit for human
consumption. There is a presumption in section 25(1) that when any food is sold or exposed
or offered for sale, unless the contrary is proved be deemed to be sold or exposed or offered
for sale for human consumption. According to section 13A, food is unfit for human
consumption if it consists wholly or in part of any diseased, filthy, decomposed, or putrid
animal or vegetable substance. Then, any portion of an animal unfit for food or the product of
an animal which has died otherwise that by slaughter or as game.
Besides, the relevant case is customer and Husna Nasi Berlauk (2006). Regarding to the
case, one of customers was buy the food at Husna Nasi Berlauk. The customer also buys the
food for his friends. On the evening, he ate another food at food court in shopping mall. On
that night, his stomach discomfort and diarrhea or nausea and difficulty sleeping. The next
day, he went to the hospital for treatment. Then, doctor said he was food poisoning. He does
not know what foods he ate that cause food poisoning but he suspects the food from Nasi
Husna Berlauk. Then, he went to seek justice for himself. After investigating, on the day, the
plaintiff bought the food and his friends also ate the same food but they did not suffer any
illness.

The application of this case is referring to the case, the plaintiff buys the food from
respondent. His friends also ate same food on that day. On tomorrow, plaintiff was food
poisoning but his friends did not suffer any illness. From this, we can find out the evidence to
accuse food poisoning from respondent is not strong.
The conclusion is we can conclude that the plaintiff is guilty in this case. So, this case
cannot be sued by the plaintiff. This is because he was the only one affected by the disease.
Besides, the respondent has other witnesses who ate the same food at the same time and day.
This is because we will find out the food poisoning after 48 hours but the plaintiff ate the
food from respondent in less than 48 hours and had food poisoning. Therefore, as a matter of
law, the plaintiff failed to meet their burden of showing that the probable cause of their
illness was contaminated food eaten at another restaurant and losses protection of the section
13A, food unfit for human consumption.